Not sure if you all saw this but this is how far the anti's will go. Apparent internet troll with fake posts, twitter accounts, websites all praising him and bashing pro drilling constituents! This is an elected representative in the heavily drilled parts of Washington,Allegheny,and Beaver Counties.

The anti's are any group that is totally against an industry or group nomatter what. Their stance is emotional, rather than logical. So nomatter what the details of the issue, or whether the issues can be addressed, their stance will always be on the same side. If their issue is addressed and solved, they will bring up a new issue.

In this case, anti-drilling. They will always oppose drilling, and brining up (real or imaginary) issues isn't about solving problems, it's about stopping the drilling at all costs.

There's also anti-nuclear, anti-mining, anti-gun, anti-war, etc.

Yes, many in these groups use subterfuge. Of course, the same is true of the other side too, call them the "pro 's" if you will, who are, emotionally or economically attached to the other side, and also take positions that aren't necessarily based in logic.

The fact that the wings are emotionally, rather than logically, based makes things difficult for those who are actually trying to identify and solve REAL issues. It's not even clear what the REAL issues are, and if they are identified, no solution will suffice. Nomatter how successful you are at mitigating concerns on either side, you will never sway the emotional wings one way or the other.

It's a mistake to put a wingnut (on either side) like this guy in public office.

Nice apology, but we both know when anyone uses the term antis (plural not possessive), they are really trying to say that any and all opposition is "emotional" as you say, when that is very far from the truth.

Posted on: 2013/6/11 14:42

_________________The doctrine of free will is the invention of the ruling class.

they are really trying to say that any and all opposition is "emotional" as you say, when that is very far from the truth.

I'm not sure it is, at least in terms of most extreme opposition, in which the term is generally reserved for. It works both ways, though. There are always emotional extremes on both sides of issues like this.

Those who are taking an honest approach, getting both sides of the story, looking at actual data, weighing the trade-offs, and primarily interested in minimizing the problems while maximizing benefits are not in the "anti" group, despite sometimes being critical or calling for restraint.

For example, take gun control. If you have supported every gun control proposal ever proposed, get all your stats and talking points from the Brady campaign, are scared of the sight of a gun, and when it comes down to it, would support pretty much making all guns illegal for the general population, then you are an "anti", as in anti-gun. If you have opposed every gun control proposal ever, get all of your data from the NRA, and when it comes down to it, believe that it's ok for 2 year olds to carry fully automatic rifles if the parents say it's ok, then you are a pro-gun wingnut. Neither side is open to changing their minds. Ever. Even attempting to address their concerns is a fool's errand, because their concerns aren't logical.

The rest of us, well, we want to see the real stats. We want to examine what a proposal will actually do, rather than take the word of the wingnuts. We want to weigh it's positives and negatives, compare that to the status quo, and make an honest decision. It is perfectly acceptable to us to, say, support one gun control measure while opposing another. That's not being two faced. It's being objective.

JackM wrote:Nice apology, but we both know when anyone uses the term antis (plural not possessive), they are really trying to say that any and all opposition is "emotional" as you say, when that is very far from the truth.

I have never called people who disagree with me "antis." It is a pejorative term with no substance. Talk about appeal to emotion, the term "anti" when used for someone who disagrees with you is classic appeal to emotion.

Posted on: 2013/6/11 16:53

_________________The doctrine of free will is the invention of the ruling class.

I have worked in this industry and I have regulated this industry. I have answered and investigated these peoples complaints. Sorry if you don't agree but these people, the anti-drilling zealots, want NO drilling, and they will make up or exaggerate any story to get their way. This representative was the worst type, claimed to be for "responsible drilling", and then attacking his own constituents online.

Not a shill. That would imply that I'm trying to hide the fact that I am in the industry. I just told everyone that I work in the oil and gas industry. I also worked for DEP as an inspector for the Office of Oil and Gas Management. I also have a degree in geology. Not a shill sir, but an educated and experienced geologist that understands that we have been drilling wells for 150 yrs, fracing wells for almost 70 years and the issues being brought up by an ignorant news media and the anti-drilling activists and politicians are nothing more than a front to shut down all drilling for oil and gas. This industry is one of the most regulated and safest industries in the US and produces the only energy (besides nuclear, which the anti nuke crowd already shut down) capable of providing power to run this great country. I really just want to educate and assure folks that drilling for oil and gas is being done correctly.

Unless with a straight face you can claim there is no environmental risk, then you have no business grouping everyone who isn't "drill, baby, drill" about it as "antis" and then further claiming that this one state rep represents all "antis."

Posted on: 2013/6/11 20:48

_________________The doctrine of free will is the invention of the ruling class.

JackM wrote:Unless with a straight face you can claim there is no environmental risk, then you have no business grouping everyone who isn't "drill, baby, drill" about it as "antis" and then further claiming that this one state rep represents all "antis."

You are cracking me up. You do realize you have opened this up to fair game, don't you?

Unless with a straight you can claim that there is no environmental rish when you drive your car, then you have no business driving.

Very few overgeneralize on this sight more than you. Mr Pigeonhole himself. Sure you may not use such terrible prefixes as anti, but you have always been quite generous with the use of labels using suffixes like ism or ist or bagger. This is getting quite entertaining.

What you did there was diversionary. you knew what he meant. Rather than talk about the points, you steered it onto a tangent.

I am not in the camp of either side (the antis or pros). However, I am a realist. EVerythign we do is eiter a result of mining or farming or both. There is virtually no activity completely without risk and since not doing anything is almost never an option... my philosophy would be proceed with caution. If a company or even an individual screws up, they should pay the price, not everyone else.

Posted on: 2013/6/12 5:15

Edited by FarmerDave on 2013/6/12 5:35:01Edited by FarmerDave on 2013/6/12 5:36:30

I don't see how anyone gets to make the logical leap from the actions of one Internet poster using unethical tactics to generalize about the opponents of gas fracking, as a group.

Although the nitwit who did this- I agree that it looks like State Sen. White is the culprit- ought to realize how weak he's made his position look.

fwiw: I'm anti hydro-fracking, pro-propane gel fracking. Although CO2 fracking would really be a breakthrough, if it could be shown to be effective and practical. Still at the early experimental stage, though.

I'm not a fan of the Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone crowd. I realize that those folks exist, and that their obstructionism often has too much influence within organized activist environmental groups. I think the net result of their input has often been to discredit grassroots environmental activism of any sort.

Consider how much ink the total obstructionists get, compared to entering into a discussion on propane gel-fracking technology.

Ultimately, that situation simply works to the benefit of the hydro-fracking status quo, which the most of the gas extraction industry would still prefer to use anywhere there's "enough water", because initial outlay costs are cheaper. Even though the notion that Pennsylvania has "enough water" has often amounted to draining small streams and creeks dry, or at least severely impacting them at critical seasons of the year, like summertime. There's also the remediation and disposal problem of tainted fracking water- all of which gel fracking would obviate.

Posted on: 2013/6/13 11:42

Edited by barbless on 2013/6/13 11:57:36Edited by barbless on 2013/6/13 11:58:52